Please go away, Mr Bush. And please, President-elect Obama, clear away the rotting debris of this ghastly administration. The latest example of dreadful Bush appointees: Stephen Johnson, head of the EPA. Asked about the evolution/creation debate, this is what he had to say:
It's not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there's theistic or God-controlled evolution and there's variations on all those themes.
Wobble and waffle. Religion and science, it's all the same to him.
Now you might say that maybe this is irrelevant — as the EPA chief, he's just a bureaucrat who must manage a horde of underlings, and his scientific qualifications aren't all that important. Now I'd hope that the guy who is in charge of protecting the environment would know something about science and would care about the environment, but Johnson seems to be a complete flack, a lackey for corporate interests. Josh Rosenau sums him up:
So, on evolution, he rejects scientific evidence in favor of the opinion of his authority figures. On climate change, he again rejects the scientific evidence in favor of the opinion of his authority figure. On the ethics of human testing of pesticides, on the appropriateness of using atrazine, on the environmental risks of mega-farms, and on value of a human life in cost-benefit analyses, Johnson has consistently ignored his scientific advisors, going along with the opinions of his political superiors.
Both of the above links also tap into this typical interview with George W. Bush. We have had this joker in office far too long.
MCFADDEN: Is it literally true, the Bible?
BUSH: You know. Probably not ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament, for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is "God sent a son."
MCFADDEN: So, you can read the Bible...
BUSH: That God in the flesh, that mankind can understand there is a God who is full of grace and that nothing you can do to earn his love. His love is a gift and that in order to draw closer to God and in order to express your appreciation for that love is why you change your behavior.
MCFADDEN: So, you can read the Bible and not take it literally. I mean you can -- it's not inconsistent to love the Bible and believe in evolution, say.
BUSH: Yeah, I mean, I do. I mean, evolution is an interesting subject. I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life and ...
MCFADDEN: But do you believe in it?
BUSH: That God created the world, I do, yeah.
MCFADDEN: But what about ...
BUSH: Well, I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the Earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty, and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.
As of this posting, one month, 12 days, 5 hours, and 21 minutes until Bush is out of office, and it's not soon enough.
- Log in to post comments
alas for simple presidents who don't know dat much.
You got that right.
Wait, guys, it's not all bad. He just admitted that there is "scientific proof that there is evolution."
The last 18th century relics to remain in play in the 21st century.
As of Jan. 20, we're in for a big paradigm shift, releasing huge tectonic stress.
As antheist all I have to say is: thank the fuck christ that man is almost out of office.
...I think reading the interview just gave me a bad case of the dumb T_T.
That question was hilarious for some strange reason.
I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty,
What a silly piece of reasoning. If something is mysterious, then how would he know what it requires?
I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, am an atheist, and I doubt the horror stories of Global Warming!
I do, however, see the benefits of detaching location from presence of available energy. The argument against global warming is a horror story, but the argument FOR energy independence is one of making the petro-dictatorships penniless.
The argument against fossil fuels is misplaced. We pay our aggressors.
It's been said before but:
The stupid . . . it burns!
And the creationists keep churning our their "scholarly" articles so that gullible wankers like Stephen Johnson can regurgitate anti-science talking points at will. Meanwhile, creationism keeps evolving, a nice example of what they claim does not exist. It seems that they may be tiring of the bacterial flagellum as the iconic example of "design" and have been digging for new things that must have been magically constructed by God. Ever heard of chaperonins? They're used in supposed refutation of evolution and natural selection in the latest magazine from the Institute for Creation Research. PZ is cited by name in the chaperonin article and refuted (or so they think).
More here: Specified prolixity.
Y'know, I'm kinda relieved -- at least he's not a YEC.
Perhaps I'm being too charitable, but that's about the best we can reasonably expect from either man.
Our side is better off if people make clear that one can believe that evolution explains the diversity of life while still believing in a creator God. How many creationists are creationists only because they think that you're either religious or an evolutionist? Also because of that, it's hard for a (Republican) EPA chief to say, without qualification, that he buys into evolution. I'm not sure what we could seriously expect him to say even if he were (secretly) an atheist.
It's important to understand that, as tired as we are of yammering on about how evolution doesn't purport to offer a complete account for why the natural world is as we see it today, lots of people see 'evolution' as shorthand for 'God had no part in creating anything'. And there are lots of segments of the electorate, particularly among Republicans, that will punish a public figure for endorsing evolution unless he immediately makes clear that he's still very religious.
No, GDub, you're a simple-minded president.
Asswipe.
Meanwhile, for those who missed it in the earlier thread, another creationist fucktard politician is in the news again. Ah, Sally Kern. Did you ever wonder if her husband was as big of a jerk as she is?
Wonder no more.
You know, I find some good stuff in there:
If I am reading this right, it says that he believes god could be behind evolution. Isn't that pretty good from a pro-science pt. of view? (Obviously not an atheist pt. of view) Think about it - say I am a god-lovin' Jesus-head. If I say that evolution is proven by modern science, that the earth formed 4.5 bya or so, the universe sprang into existence 14ish bya, etc., but then say "Well, I have faith that God was behind it all.", that should be alright.
Again, alright for the pro-science/anti-creationist activists. Anti-religion activists, for obvious reasons, still think that isn't saying enough. But I say, as long as a person of faith acknowledges that their god is not testable and, by faith alone, can be believed to be "architect" of the natural world or whatever, then that's ok for government.
Billy:
There's another way to look at it. As in, Bush is just so stupid that he's found a way to really make everyone hate him. Even the usual 22% who support the most fissured crackpot ideas in every poll.
Helluva job, Georgie!
Well billy @ 14, I and some other people here on Pharyngula certainly don't mind the deist position nearly as much as the God-is-doing-stuff-right-now-because-I-prayed-to-Him position.
Of course, Bush himself doesn't take that POV.
He talks to God, and God talks back, giving him advice on how to run things(who to invade, who not to, who are Good People(tm) and who are Evil, etc...)
As I understand it, the USA was largely founded by Deists, so they were clearly OK with that "for government" down there.
I'm still not entirely happy with the deist way of looking at things, but I'd much rather that people in positions of power over me were deists than regular theists. And I'd rather regular theists over "God told me to kill these people, so I'm going to." types.
Upon reading PZ's summary and looking at our (human) scientific progress... it truly boggles my mind to note that it has only *only* taken us this long to get to where we are today.
With buffoons like this leading the charge... the fact that the internet even exists truly surprises the shit out of me.
I think it's a miracle that any of us managed to survive these past eight years with that drooling simp in office. I mean, it's pretty freakin' dangerous to have the access to the information that worthless gomer had at his fingertips and still manage to learn absolutely nothing in eight fucking years.
Is it bad that our president sounds so stupid that I had to check the source of the article to make sure it was not a satire.
wildcardjack #8, I actually have no way to get a feeler for which POV is more correct. I can understand pretty much most important scientific ideas but not this.
I think right now I'm with the late Michael Crichton who thinks that global warming is surely real but not a crisis.
Billy #14, yeah, I mean, for a Christian of his kind, to say what he said, well what can we expect? Maybe we can now say, "G.W. Bush accepts evolution. Can't you?"
truckboattruck #17, one might wonder if we ever did send a man to the moon after all. :-P
Then why didn't he get a scientific adviser sooner?
We might as well take our good fortune when we get it. Bush may not be the smartest cookie in the jar (and competition among cookies is not strong), but he's talking a great deal more sensibly than any number of creationists in that interview.
I just think that it's nice to know that he can read. I haven't been so sure over the years.
And yes, it is good that it is almost over.
Weirdly enough, Bush comes across a lot better in that interview than he usually does. The problem isn't theists' opinions about the origin of the universe - they're welcome to have them. And I think they can make perfectly decent leaders, unfounded opinions and all, as long as they make sure that their policies are evidence-based. And that's where Bush has failed: he's implemented faith-based policies.
There are scientists, even evolutionary biologists, who are theists (not just deists) and whose general conception of the world falls somewhere along the lines of that expressed by Bush. They do good science because they know how to separate faith-based opinion from evidence-based work. That should be fine with us.
Now, the tricky part is that theists who think this way and who are not biologists are susceptible to the arguments for ID, because ID starts out with this same line of reasoning. It becomes difficult to condemn ID-as-policy when so many people think they agree with its fundamental premise. But it can be done, and in the process we can educate people about evidence and scientific reasoning.
I'm with billy and Gotchaye. To me, the biggest ineffable of all is why does the universe exist? Why anything? Until science can answer that question - and I think there's reason to doubt it ever will - I really don't see what's so wrong with believing that god did it. I'd like to see someone pinpoint exactly what in that quote they find so objectionable. Invading Iraq because you believe god told you to do it? Sheer lunacy. Belief in a deist god? To my mind, that's the next best thing to atheism/agnosticism, and that particular Bush quote is not so far from being something a deist might say.
Wait a minute...
If George W. Bush knows enough to not be a biblical literalist or Y.E.C., then just how ignorant and uncurious does someone have to be to believe that crap?
incurious
...sorry
I'm just a simple president
Heh.
As some others above have said, I don't see what's so wrong with that particular Bush interview. True, he's not terribly articulate - but we knew that already. But he seems to be taking a sensible, if rather confused, stance; he rejects Biblical literalism, and acknowledges the scientific proof for evolution. He merely points out that, in his opinion as a theist, "evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life".
In the end, I'm not a biologist, and neither is President Bush - and, therefore, neither of us can really have a clear understanding of, or a meaningful opinion about, evolutionary theory. I know I believe in God; but I also know that there is solid scientific evidence indicating the validity of evolutionary theory, and that the Earth is much more than six thousand years old. I therefore reject Biblical literalism (which I would also do on other grounds, since parts of the Old Testament are abhorrent if read literally) and embrace theistic evolution; and I see creationism as absurd. But it would be pointless, and indeed irresponsible, for me to make up some half-baked synthesis of my own - considering that I have no training in either biology or theology - and pretend that my opinion on this matter was particularly worthwhile. Ditto for President Bush.
To me, the biggest ineffable of all is why does God exist? Why God at all? Until science can answer that question - and I think there's reason to doubt it ever will - I really don't see what's so wrong with believing that meta-God did it. I'd like to see someone pinpoint exactly what in that quote they find so objectionable.
It's 314 mHv (milli Hovinds), the Hovind being the S.I. unit of combined cretinous stupidity and willful ignorance. After he gets out of prison, Hovind is to be flown to Geneva, there to be kept in a vault under two bell-jars.
To me, the biggest ineffable of all is why does meta-God exist? Why meta-God at all? Until science can answer that question - and I think there's reason to doubt it ever will - I really don't see what's so wrong with believing that meta-meta-God did it. I'd like to see someone pinpoint exactly what in that quote they find so objectionable.
No, that isn't ineffable. Indeed, it's so effable that you just effed it. And the answer is: he doesn't.
Bush's assertion that science and creationist notions are compatible only shows that he knows very little, if anything, about either.
Honestly, I expected a lot worse from Bush. I really think if you asked Obama, he'd give basically the same answer. Sure, he's smart enough to keep creationism and ID out of schools, but he's surely no less a theistic evolutionist than Bush.
Of course, this is why I'm counting the days until Jan. 20, and then the minutes until the swearing-in:
"I'm just a simple president."
I don't want that attitude anywhere near the White House anymore.
Meanwhile, Bush's Interior Sec. Kempthorne will be coming back to Idaho. Goodie.
So, instead, you accept the half-baked synthesis of someone else.
One's lack of training in leprechology doesn't make leprechauns any more likely to exist. Ditto for theology and gods.
Well, it looks like one of the main contenders for the Energy Secretary in the Obama cabinet could be an actual well-qualified physicist! This, at least, is a very good thing for the environment.
#3
Yes he admitted there is scientific proof for evolution. The problem is that it is totally irrelevant to him, and to many others who believe as he does. Science is evil, so anything proven scientifically can be essentially ignored.
Still, such an admission is better than nothing.
skepsci @ #25:
What's wrong with it is that it doesn't get you anywhere except "Why does god exist?" Until you can answer that, you haven't explained anything; you've just multiplied logical entities needlessly.
I apologize for this being slightly off-topic, but when someone brings up Hovind, I'm immediately reminded of Haggard for some reason, which is good enough in my mind for a rather sloppy segue into a wonderful song written by Roy Zimmerman, called Ted Haggard is Completely Heterosexual. If you haven't heard it, you owe it to yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZmHC75FDqQ
Well, there's a song about Kent Hovind too.
From reading the interview (and others like it) one thing that stands out is where Bush says "I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty"
That sentence represents quite well why we got faerietales to explain why it such a big confusing world. Simply because that the world is so mysterious that we dont really get it. But instead of accepting the fact that there are something bigger than us, some turn to religion.
The same problem with saying "turtles all the way down" two thousand years ago, because their science (or lackthereof) couldn't explain how the Earth was staying "still."
You're effectively saying "Give me absolute proof of something or I'll make some random shit up, believe in it, and then somehow feel justified in that belief" That's irrationality, if not insanity.
Quite frankly, your statement is absurd to the point of stupidity.
It is MUCH WORSE THAN YOU THINK
There is THIS HORROR to contend with .....
As others have noted, it may not be saying a lot, but Bush has never sounded more reasonable. (Whatever his baseline intelligence level, he has always interviewed below it and his stammering makes him look dumber than he is.) I can't decide whether this implies he was secretly drinking for most of his presidency and is only now coming out of a fog, or whether it suggests he's recently gone back on the sauce and is therefore inclined to be a little more honest about his "relationship" to the LORD.
As of this posting, one month, 12 days, 5 hours, and 21 minutes until Bush is out of office, and it's not soon enough.
Not to worry. Right now Bush is just twiddling his thumbs. Obama has already starting taking over. He's making all the decisions. And Bush, as hopelessly stupid as he is, is at least cooperating with the transition.
Bush sure left our country a total mess. Two never ending wars, and the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Thanks Emmet! I had forgotten about that musical gem. =)
And to Dennis, I agree with you. There is sadly no shortage of people who find the everyday quantifiable world more deeply mysterious than even quantum physicists find quantum mechanics. A world-view that discourages education in favor of mystery and blind faith seems to produce armies of sheeple who cling to arguments from incredulity and false dichotomy. "I don't understand any of this, therefore god did it."
If the America survives the damage done by this horde and their man in Washington, I sincerely hope we as a society, can find the intestinal fortitude to call a spade a spade and recognize what happens when the least educated gain control of a nation. Whatever happens, failure of the greater public to learn that lesson will likely condemn us to repeat it, again and again until it surely does us in.
I noticed whenever President Obama talks about science or science education, he never mentions anything about the magic fairy. I don't think it's fair to call Obama a theistic evolutionist because he never mixes his religious beliefs with science. I sometimes doubt Obama has any religious beliefs. Certainly he is smart enough to figure out he had to fake being religious to get elected in this idiot country. If he is religious, I doubt he's very serious about it. He certainly isn't a god-soaked wacko like Bush.
I do exist, I've just been on holiday for the past thirteen billion years.
But I'm back on next thursday.
@BobC
I wish he was just twiddling his thumbs and being a good little lame duck, but instead he's rushing to push through as many elements of his nefarious (and decidedly inexplicable, outside of conspiracy theory) agenda as possible before the clock runs out.
Basically, Bush is busier now than ever, doing the presidential equivalent of shitting on the coats. Add to that the overall lack of public opposition to it from the President-elect, and the prognosis is not reassuring.
Not to worry. Right now Bush is just twiddling his thumbs. Obama has already starting taking over. He's making all the decisions. And Bush, as hopelessly stupid as he is, is at least cooperating with the transition.
Bush is furiously stacking the various bureaucracies with flacks and cronies that will be hard to root out. I am reminded of Bonnie Cocks' characteriztion of the ToE as a dying snake that seeks to bit it's killer, even though that won't save it.
You're right. I stand corrected.
My contempt for Bush grows every day.
Posted by: Pikemann Urge @20
Fuck! I'm not sure what is worse people who claim to be rational atheists and then turn around and deny the science behind climate change or people who still think that Michael Chriton was some sort of authority on it. Not a crisis my ass!
By coincidence the most recent post over at realclimate.org
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/contrarians-and-c…
has plenty of wackos commenting about religion, biology, Darwin, politics, peak oil and last but not least denying climate change. It's great for a good laugh but scary when you think about how many people out there lack critical thinking skills.
Humanity is soooo screwed!
I'm mystified by the fact that those who say that there has to be a ruling intelligence behind life, the universe and everything overlap with those who claim that the marketplace is regulated by blind forces.
"The End" may be sooner than you think PZ
Are We In The End Of Days?
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=64b6a642e04430ecd38a
Mark my words, we have not finished getting screwed by this family.
I think the single most dangerous person to humanity is Governor Jeb Bush. "The Smart One". Imagine if GWB were a moderately capable leader rather than a twitchy coke-burnout.
bornagain77 "The End" may be sooner than you think PZ
Are We In The End Of Days?
If global warming takes off, we really could effectively be in the end days of our civilization. But it's nothing to do with any feckin' gods, except in the sense that the lame-brains that believe in them don't have the critical thinking skills to learn the right information & then realize how we should behave.
Magical thinking won't work, dumbass!
You just now figuring that out? I realized it years ago when I had to talk to the general American public every day.
And that is one big reason why you shouldn't be the president of one of the most powerful and influential nations on this planet! You shouldn't be simple, or an average kind of guy. You should be highly intelligent, educated, have at least some experience, and have the best of the people and the world in mind.
Mr Diplotti, you are a genius! I doff my cap to you in humble admiration.
UGH! Tag-closing fail. Let's try again.
I forget; is "citing an irrelevant degree" one of the denialism cards?
I love how Fundies like bornagain77 @#56 will walk off the cliff like lemmings and demand that everyone follow in blind support of the fairy tales that make them feel special.
Their support of Bush was just another example of their insatiable desire to help "God" and Jebus rid the planet of the human vermin that don't agree with them.
Go back to kneeling before the moderators at UD bornagain77. Quoting scripture proves nothing more than you can read.
Listening to Bush I am always reminded of under-achieving first year students who are willing to say pretty much anything to get a bare pass so they can go back to their partying. The result, of course, is a series of non sequiturs that I find myself trying to find a way through to see if they have learnt anything, anything at all. Usually, the answer is - no.
#14: If I am reading this right, it says that he believes god could be behind evolution. Isn't that pretty good from a pro-science pt. of view?
No. Sticking a magic fairy into evolutionary biology pollutes it. It's a child idiotic idea, exactly what I would expect from our moron president.
Nate 19,
What's sad, I think, was that satire did a better job at predicting the Bush presidency than most pundits did. From The Onion ,
I wonder if Bush, is, like his (liberal) predecessor going to pardon some of the most obnoxious crooks who've ever contributed to his election campaign.
When I first (with Clinton) became aware of the outgoing president's right of pardon, I was amazed that something so medieval could be possible under the greatest constitution in the world.
(God sent a son
(God controlled evolution
(AGW denial
(Libertarianism
(Exceptionalism
(Market fundamentalism
(Pathological optimism
⇒
Take as much as you want and don't worry about future generations, it's all part of the plan.
So Bush is leaving. Obama is already backtracking on promisies of "change" (which means whatever the hearer wants) and getting out of Irag.
He is just going to print money in the old capitalist tradition.
@ Wildcardjack #8>
Before I launch into something here... You don't accept the horror stories of global warming, as you phrase it... Do you accept, based on the evidence: a) that we are in a period of global climate change characterised by an increase in average temperature ? b) that at least some of the cause of this shift is anthropogenic?
The crux of my question is are you stating that you don't accept that the consequences will be as bad as some suggest or do you not accept that it's happening at all?
Reminds me of that old SNL bit with Phil Hartman..."I'm just a simple caveman lawyer."
Walton (#29):
And why exactly is that a good reason for supposing that the passages were not meant literally?
In any case, is a God who is allegorically depicted as a genocidal psychopath really all that preferable to one who is depicted literally as such? Seems to me that if one wants to preserve the idea that the God of the bible is benign, one has to admit that the bible is an imperfect, human construct with many passages which are not divinely inspired - which leaves one with the problem of how to distinguish (in a consistent, non-question begging manner) the divinely inspired bits from the rest.
We must hope for a two-term Obama administration. The first seven and a half years he can toil endlessly to root out the time bombs (e.g. republican political officers who insert "the unproven theory of" before instances of the word "evolution" in NASA documents -n-stuff). Alas, even seven and a half years probably isn't enough.
I can't help believing what I hear about how the bush (I can't bring myself to capitalize its name) administration has larded down all government bureaucracies with sleeper agents whose job is to poison government operations to make them less effective, and to make them appear to be even less effective in an effort to trick people into hating government.
Isn't there some way we can sue people who ever voted for this crap-all-over-your-living-room dumbass? Maybe we can somehow substitute a Wicked Bible whenever a connie sympathizer gets sworn in. I mean, if Skydude's really there, how could Skydude let something like that really happen? If they don't commit adultery, we can stroke ourselves and pretend we're embarrassing them (alas, they're immune to feeling stupid even when they are outrageously stupid).
Fortunately, I don't care anymore, I don't care what Bush personally feels about evolution anymore, nor do I really care about what part of the Bible he sees as more important, at this point it doesn't matter... and my blood pressure thanks me for it.
"12 days, 5 hours, and 21 minutes until Bush is out of office,"
It's more like 43 days.
June, it says
Bold mine.
@peter @68
Arrogant much, are we? And, now that you've found out that that is possible, do you still think yours is the greatest constitution in the world (I am assuming you are an American...)
I've been wondering lately, I often see phrases like "This is not what the Founding Fathers would have wanted" or "It'd be against the (US) Constitution" show up on this blog.
Then there is often some debate on that the Founding Fathers were really Deists and not Christians, or the correct interpretation of the Constitution, or something like that, but the only thing that I can think of is "Well, who cares?"
What does it matter, really, what the Founding Fathers thought, or what they meant when they wrote the Constitution?
I mean, they could've been wrong about something...
Trotsky's Ghost,
But, but, but, it would be sooo unamerican to start looking for money where the money is, ie on the accounts (offshore and not) of all the fat-cats who made fortunes speculating during the bonanza years.
You wouldn't want that, would you ? It's only fair that the poor and middle classes pay for their profits via future devaluations of the $ !Otherwise, if it doesn't work and the people start getting agitated, the other option will be to colonize Saudi Arabia and Iran and hope that the rest of the world keeps nice and quite.
SOCR@78,
I sympathize with your annoyance with Americans citing the American Constitution as "the greatest in the world". Clearly it's difficult to come to an empirical conclusion about this.
However, interpretation is important, and the FF worked on a large number of principles of government in hammering out the Constitution. If it didn't matter at all, we could slide into a theocracy or fascist state even more easily and completely than under Bush.
Also, the FF did recognize they could be wrong about things, which is why there are amendments. Amendments are part of the Constitution.
skepsci (#25):
Well, at the moment it seems to me that the main problem with answering the question "Why does the universe exist?" is that science has a number of possible answers - but not enough data to decide between them. If you mean "can give a definitive answer" then you may conceivably be right - we may never have the data that would decide between the different cosmological models available to us.
But what's wrong with believing "goddidit" is that it's a non-explanation - not just from a scientific point of view but from a philosophical one. It raises a whole host of additional problems (not least the coherence of the god concept); it is often circular in nature (explaining X in terms of X); and it invariably has nothing to say regarding just how, given God, the phenomenon to be explained is an expected consequence. It really is no different from saying "it happened by magic".
If we don't know what the explanation is for a given phenomenon, then this does not mean that "Goddidit" gains a place at the explanatory table by default. It has to earn consideration as a plausible explanation on its own merits, which are slender indeed.
Personally, I'd rather live with not knowing than entertain an "explanation" which I can see is a bad one.
It doesn't look like anyone's mentioned this, but the Philadelphia Inquirer is running a multi-part series about the massive fail of the EPA during the Bush years: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/special/35362879.html.
I haven't read it due a combo of lack of time and dread, but it looks to be interesting, to put it mildly.
Matt A
I think Obama has made his first BIG mistake on Sunday :
"We don't want government to run companies," Obama told Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press." "Generally, government historically hasn't done that very well."
That's pure dogma. There's much evidence that Government has done a better job than private entreprise in several domains particularly in Western Europe.
Why is "Natonalization" such a dirty word in America ?
Great article :
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/12/why-is-nationalization-dirty-wor…
I saw the Stephen Johnson story via HuffPo and instantly rushed over here to see if anyone'd mentioned it. I should've know PZ would be all over this like white on rice!
The worst part for all thinking, reasonably intelligent Americans must be that the moronic, fumbling fuckwit has been their nation's ultimate representative and face to the world for the last eight years.
Reagan was crap, as was Bush 1, but the last Bush - fucking unbelievable! And every time he opens his mouth now it becomes clearer that he is just an intellectual vacuum.
Here in Australia the PM was a creepy little arselicker, the Bush suppository Howard, but he is thankfully gone. Sadly not put down as he should be, but at least his whining voice is seldom heard anymore.
Honestly, I don't give a shit about Bush, Johnson, and all that crap but I'm extremely worried about the direction Obama is heading for.
Too bad Obama - like almost all politicians - is also too cowardly to give up the god crap.
"When God created the Earth he entrusted us to take responsibility to take care of that Earth," Obama says....
http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/603699,CST-NWS-Hunter15.article
I guess Barack and Johnson are talking to different gods.
Simple-ton
"I'm just a simple-ton president..."
Asked about the evolution/creation debate, this is what he had to say:
It's not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there's theistic or God-controlled evolution and there's variations on all those themes.
When I see this, I think of Eugenie Scott's book. While the man may believe in creationism (I can't tell from just this quote), the quote itself seems to talk about the range of beliefs that fall into the "creation vs evolution" debate. All the way from "YEC" to "Theistic evolution" to "evolution without intervention but there may still be a creator" to "evolution without intervention because there is no being to intervene or no evidence of such a being to intervene". Sorry but I forget the exact labels Ms. Scott used for the various categories. This quote appears to possibly have been simply referring to the fact that there are not just two positions in the debate.
"Still, such an admission is better than nothing."
I'm not so sure about that.
You know, I can't even read quotes from moran bush without getting nausea let alone listening to him.
Won't January 20 come sooner?
Methinks Obama's message is typical of a Deist : there's a God, but he's not going to intervene to save us, it's our own responsibility.
SOCR-4735 @ 78 and CrypticLife@80
..sorry, I'm not American, and irony was intended.
In fact, the US const. has stood the test of time in many respects, but is far from flawless, as this example shows.
Why is "Natonalization" such a dirty word in America ?
One word: AmTrak
My main concern for the "it's so mysterious that some god must have made it" line of thought is that it impedes real work on real problems. Didn't Behe mention that there was no reason to study the immune system at the Dover trial, since "we can't possibly figure it out," and so punt it to a god? I'm ok with not knowing many things, but sure as hell we have to try.....
AmTrak ?
You mean, a deliberate exercise in trying to prove that nationalization cannot work ?
To me, the biggest ineffable of all is why does the universe exist? Why anything? Until science can answer that question - and I think there's reason to doubt it ever will - I really don't see what's so wrong with believing that god did it.
Why isn't "I dunno. What's for lunch?" an acceptable answer? When confronted with huge unknowns why not just accept that you don't know something instead of filling the empty space with bullshit?
I saw a box by the side of the road and wondered what was in it. Since my car was whizzing past and I didn't feel like stopping, I wasn't able to get out and actually check, so I believe that the box was full of marshmallows. Because it's intolerable to not know?
Why isn't "I dunno. What's for lunch?" an acceptable answer? When confronted with huge unknowns why not just accept that you don't know something instead of filling the empty space with bullshit?
Exactly, Marcus. The idea that your choice of facing the unknown is to just make up crap is just not the best choice for this planet anymore......
You mean, a deliberate exercise in trying to prove that nationalization cannot work ?
I won't debate whether it was deliberate or not, just think that if you ask an American about nationalization, they will think "Amtrak", not "Airbus".
The truly scary thing is, as far as evolution goes, Mike Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Francis Collins.
Interviewing Bush is like talking to a Neanderthal. He can barely walk erect, and his only lucid moments are when he is asleep and dreaming in a state of unconsciousness.
That's equivallent to saying that whatever caused the universe to exist you define as "God". Fine. One of the Scientific hypothesis is that it's an eternally bubbling false vaccuum. Now what's wrong is to believe that that thing, that "God", amongst other things, caused the universe to exist for a specific human purpose, sent his son to save us, can transform himself into a cracker, answers prayers, doesn't like homosexuals, condems abortions, decides who was a good guy and grants him eternal life, and another few thousands myths and superstitions.
Reality is that God believers don't give a fucking shit of a God who ONLY caused the universe to exist. They want a God that does things for them. Bush and Johnson clearly belong to that category.
As I've been saying for several years now, he's a uniter, not a divider. He has united everyone against him.
Not even!!!
It proves he has read some parts of it, but not others. For example this here:
Got it, bornagain77? Claiming you know, however vaguely, when the end of the world will be amounts to saying you're greater than Jesus Haploid Christ, Who does not know the day of His own return.
It also proves something else: that there is no such thing as a Biblical literalist, and that there cannot be, because of all the contradictions.
Because Walton believes what he wants to believe, because he wants to believe it.
(IMNSHO that's the worst possible reason for believing anything at all...)
Exactly.
We don't know why the universe exits and will probably never know, but to continue with debate and conjecture will never bring us to that fact. As far as I'm concerned, it is there with all it's incredible wonders as formed through the process of chemistry and physics, all without the intervention of a supernatural being. I accept this blatant fact and have never deviated from it. If there was a supreme being, I am sure that it would make it's existence known to us, especially after the billions of appeals from the afflicted, physical and mental, that have been supplicated to it throughout our history on this planet. Search forever, but you will find no presence of a god, just raw natural forces that act without a supernatural force behind it.
This is directed to skepsci @ 25 and negentropyeater @ 103
Tsk, tsk, tsk. The Neandertalers walked just as erect as us.
Holbach #105,
nothing I disgaree with.
For once, Bush was right: he IS "simple."
DM @ 106
Of course, but I meant to express it as a primitive not knowing why he walks erect.
#25: To me, the biggest ineffable of all is why does the universe exist? Why anything? Until science can answer that question - and I think there's reason to doubt it ever will - I really don't see what's so wrong with believing that god did it.
Invoking the magic-fairy-of-the-gaps is childish. It's equal to invoking the easter bunny. There is no magic in the universe and there never was any magic. Fairies aren't real. That's what wrong with it.
I noticed Bush invoked his fairy to magically create planets. He's an uneducated idiot and I look forward to his retirement.
nothing to do with god, but why this simple-ton is the leader of the country. A majority of citizens actually voted him into office, after four years of seeing him in action, and a lot of people still support him even as he destroys us all. If we could understand how that happens, there might be some hope for us.
I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty
President Bush, it wouldn't be so mysterious to you if you weren't an uneducated Christian hick. Take your almighty magic fairy and shove it.
Well, clearly, this simpleton president is simply being the politician by having it both ways. As he has no credibility, these words by themselves don't really mean that much, although of course it does reveal a frightening lack of any scientific literacy. But taken in the larger context of the totality of his words and actions (talking to God, Jesus as favorite philosopher, political support of faith based groups, history of suppressing evidence based scientific results), the picture is pretty clear as to what is going on in what passes for a brain.
But, yes, about 1-1/2 months more of Bush is too long and I can't wait for this administration to be a bad memory, a footnote in history about 8 years of madness.
Holbach, what do you mean by 'why'?
The only reason the universe exists is because the Big Bang happened.
Assuming there's a PURPOSE for the universe, if that's what you mean, is just anthropocentric. The universe just is.
Katharine @114,
Talk about synchronicity! I didn't even finish reading PZ's post when I rushed to the comments section to loose my thoughts to the interwebs and your comment is right above this little box. I'll track the thread after I submit this:
The Multiverses exist to give us hope that some(where?) there's a place with no Stupid in it - it's a moral victory even if we can never go there.
skepsci (#25):
"To me, the biggest ineffable of all is why does the universe exist? Why anything? Until science can answer that question - and I think there's reason to doubt it ever will - I really don't see what's so wrong with believing that god did it."
The WHY of existence cannot be known because real knowledge can only be knowledge of that which already exists. Real knowledge cannot extend beyond the bounds of existence. The fundamental fact of existence is the foundation, i.e., the starting point of all real knowledge.
Small minds need a big deity.
@77 Feynmaniac points out that PZ wrote: "As of this posting, one month, 12 days, 5 hours, and 21 minutes until Bush is out of office."
One MONTH? Ohhhhhhh ... never mind ...
Just because Bush leaves office doesn't mean this is over. America has far too much invested in the instruments of war for this to be simply over.
Walton @#29 said: I'm not a biologist, and neither is President Bush - and, therefore, neither of us can really have a clear understanding of, or a meaningful opinion about, evolutionary theory.
Ridiculous. You don't need a doctorate in biology to gain a clear understanding and a meaningful opinion about evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean you could do a biologist's work, but it's all written in English, (or whatever language you speak), and with a little effort most people can certainly understand the basics. Of course, it's more difficult if you start with a god-centric bias.
David Marjanović, #104
You assume it's impossible for the mind to partition itself, believing contradictory points at the same time without realizing they're contradictory. I assure you, cognitive dissonance exists.
And anyway, a biblical literalist can take parts (rather than the whole) of the book literally, and still be considered a biblical literalist. S/he just has to be ignorant of the contents of the rest of the book. :P
Well, Obama fans, your guy said this:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Don't argue with me, argue with yourself, as he recommends a police state beyond your wildest dreams. You'll beg for the simple and actually inoffensive remarks of a poor public speaker modest enough not to be full of himself for winning the Presidency.
An article on aol.com on this subject has several polls which need voters :-)
Vote now!
-Nimbien #42 @ Skepsci #25
Whoa there, let's keep things on the intellectual discussion level.
I believe what Skepsci was saying was that the intellectual justification can be "God's behind it" without any ill effects as long as physical evidence is not contradicted by this faith. The perfect example would be a believer who accepts ALL science and evidence and leaves their god in the gaps in which science will likely never touch (as opposed to gaps that science has yet to fill). This can be a legitimate method of dealing with the world for some people who are not comfortable with a purely materialistic point of view. This hypothetical believer (the likes of which DO exist, as I know some) might summarize his/her beliefs in such a deist manner:
"I believe that outside of the realm of the physical world there exists a deity that is responsible for the natural universe in which we all live. This god is responsible for all of the natural phenomena we observe through observation and experimentation and has acted on the world through those mechanisms throughout history. I cannot test this hypothesis and it is grounded in my faith and personal, emotional experiences."
Now, as an atheist comfortable with my "No supernatural" beliefs, I still think this is a little silly; that's my opinion. However, the beliefs of this person of faith would not be "absurd to the point of stupidity." Stupidity is rejection of knowledge, and denial of repeatable observations in lieu of faith IS stupid, i.e. the monotheistic fundie crowds that give us so much flak. Emotional/faith based belief in something that is not testable (again, stressing that this belief does not contradict observable, natural phenomena) on the grounds that it enriches your life and makes you more comfortable in the world, however, is not stupid.
At any rate, this has little to do with the post PZ made as I do NOT either GWB or McFadden have this world view. I think they ARE ignorant and do hold faith based beliefs that contradict our understanding of the natural world. As an rational atheist, I find their faith-based convictions alarming as they knowingly reject reason. But the hypothetical believer I described above is not like GWB at all. Rather (s)he is an example of a religious person who is not absurd to the point of stupidity. In fact, I would see this person as rather intelligent.
Oops... In the above I meant to write Johnson (EPA head), not McFadden (who was the interviewer who asked GWB all those Biblicious questions)
Hey, it's not all that bad. He's accepting evolution and he's not insisting on a literal interpretation of the bible. That's pretty much the view of the majority of Christians worldwide, and it's a far cry from the dogmatic views of fundamentalists. We should work with this, not keep denegrating Bush at every turn.
Sure, he was a terrible president and I don't support the vast majority of his policies. But, give the guy a break, he's trying to discuss a complex subject with sublety (surely not one of his strengths) and he's gone a lot further than he might have even 6 months ago.
There's room for belief and non-belief. We're not likely to settle this in 100 lifetimes. This is at least a starting point for a civil discourse. Let's take this much as a gift and move forward.
@Radwaste,
So...
Wanting to restore respect for the posse commitatus clause by replacing the military forces now seemingly allowed to be responsible for police work in America with an equally effective, but constitutional, civilian one is bad because?
Billy @124: I still think deism is just about the weakest form of atheism that there is. Spinoza had more things going for his God. At least God Was something. And why would we even need to insist that whatever it was that created the universe was intelligent? seem fishy to me. Not intrinsically silly, after all, if God is unnecessary, that makes him more human and relatable and all that. It isn't too much of a stretch that something could act as a creator beyond this universe. Heck, humans pretty much understand the mechanism of inflation, so if we were so inclined, we could create a universe. That said, if the difference between not-god and god is indistinguishable ,then Occam's razor wins.
Fernando Magyar #54, you may keep your pants on and cease to tear our your hair.
I suggest to you that if Mr. Crichton were a proponent of global-warming-crisis you'd be cheering him on. Even though he's no authority on it, according to your implication.
Billy at #124:
This hypothetical believer (the likes of which DO exist, as I know some) might summarize his/her beliefs in such a deist manner:
"I believe that outside of the realm of the physical world there exists a deity that is responsible for the natural universe in which we all live. This god is responsible for all of the natural phenomena we observe through observation and experimentation and has acted on the world through those mechanisms throughout history. I cannot test this hypothesis and it is grounded in my faith and personal, emotional experiences."
That's pretty much a summary of my religious views. Thanks, btw, for pointing out the distinction between this and fundamentalism. I don't reject evolution; I don't view the Genesis creation story as anything more than a didactic myth; and I don't take all Biblical teaching literally, since I believe that the Bible is an imperfect text written by human beings trying to rationalise their encounters with the divine. But I do believe in God, and I believe that God speaks to us through our consciences (hence I'm not a pure deist, since I do believe that God intervenes in human minds).
I don't, of course, have any particular evidence in support of my position, and I could be completely and utterly wrong and deluded. But, in a sense, it doesn't matter. I believe that the best way to serve God is to follow Christ's injunction "Love your neighbour as yourself". If I prove to be wrong, I have lost nothing by caring about the people around me and trying to make the world better; nor have my beliefs done society any harm.
This contrasts, of course, with (a) those who reject modern biology, geology, anthropology and history in favour of strict Biblical literalism; and (b) those who use their beliefs as a pretext for promoting hate and fear. And I want nothing to do with those people.
Apart from this naked usurpation of the, much older, Golden Rule, the Christian doctrine is entirely evil. The notion of being "born guilty of Original Sin" is obviously immoral. The notion of vicarious redemption is immoral. The notion that this redemption can be achieved through torture and murder is immoral. Any god who would condone, much less engineer, such a system of hideous doctrines deserves not service, but revulsion and contempt: Yahweh is plainly evil. As MAJeff is fond of saying: I've done nothing so bad that it requires the torture and murder of a person to atone for.
Emmet at #131: You're essentially referring to the doctrine of penal substitution - which is a disputed doctrine, and I think it's rather too simplistic to view it in terms of God having Jesus tortured and murdered as punishment for our sins. That would, indeed, be incomprehensible and repugnant.
Rather, the way I look at it - though many theologians have more sophisticated answers - is that there is an innate moral order to the universe; wrong must be punished. God must operate by these rules, otherwise our universe loses its order and comprehensibility. In the OT, the Israelites were allowed to sacrifice animals as proxy for their sins; in the NT, Jesus died on the cross, voluntarily and out of love, as proxy for all the sins of humankind.
This is my understanding, but I freely admit that it's not terribly satisfying. I'm no theologian, nor would I claim to be an outstandingly clear thinker.
Walton,
You're clear enough, when you try. Thing is, bad premises will lead to bad conclusions, no matter how valid your thinking.
As for theologians having more sophisticated answers, that's a laugh. More sophistic answers, perhaps.
This would be the all-powerful God that made the Universe, right? ;)
Walton #132,
What non-literal Christianity asks you to believe is that Yahweh sat on his hands and did fuck all for ~13.3 billion years, piddling about on the margins of physics to ensure the development of a bald ape with a big brain on an insignificant rock, orbiting a piddly star in an unremarkable galaxy, then 197,000 years later suddenly revealed himself to a small group of semi-literate desert goatherds in an obscure part of the Middle East, behaved like a complete prick for about a thousand years, then decided that he would incarnate himself as one of the bald apes and have himself tortured and nailed to a tree in order to appease himself for his own displeasure at the, entirely fictitious, landmark event of two particular apes using their genitals for their entirely natural evolved purpose. You believe this shit? It's beneath ridiculous, a transparently preposterous concoction of primitive codswallop that any person claiming to be rational should be ashamed to believe.
Christian theology is intellectual masturbation, the product of perverse attempts by weak-minded fools to continuously reshape the silly myth of ancient desert aborigines into something palatable to the modern moral zeitgeist, rather than throwing the whole mess of contemptible nonsense down the nearest toilet, where it belongs.
Allegorical my hole. It's asinine. The whole damn lot of it.
uh...Emmet for Molly!
Good morning (or whatever), all.
Of course not. How moral. I haven't linked to it in a while, but I think this calls for Allen Wood, courtesy of Damian:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fyi.php#comment-981847
On behalf of one of your neighbors, let me say you and the other corporatarian ideologues can take your willfully ill-informed version of "love" and shove it. Thank you.
Now this,I will hold dear for a very long time....
Walton,
What does this mean, in practical terms ?
Walton @ 132
You can always be a theologian as this state is open to any irrational dolt, but you will never be a clear thinker no matter what state you are in, other than unconscious.
Emmet @134,
just to nitpick an otherwise great post, I have always had an issue with the term "intellectual masturbation" when used for Christian Theology, because I think it is too benign and mises Theology's primary purpose, ie the monetary exploitation of the masses. Maybe "Intellectual prostitution" ?
negentropyeater @140,
Good point, but my reservation about "intellectual prostitution" would be that it suggests that someone else is satisfied by the activity, which is hardly the case. No, I think theology is definitely a circle-jerk. The clever bit is convincing the rubes that it's worth paying to watch, like some tawdry peep-show of simulated thinking.
negentropyeater @ 140
You take issue with EC's comment at 134 because it is an inferred ridicule no matter how benign, and still offends your religious outlook even in matters of intellectual probing. My preferred term would be "intellectual necrosis", as this more than infers religion's harmful and totally useless state.
You're right. "intellectual peep-show" catches it !
Holach @142
please stop infering things and looking for internet fights. Where am I "offended" by Emmet's comment ? My religious outlook ? Stop fabulating.
negentropyeater @ 144
You are an avowed agnostic, and as such still embrace a modicum of religious uncertainity which tends you to counter any remark that smacks of ridicule to that state of perpetual indecision. I have no intention of looking for internet fights, but only want to express my opinion when it runs counter to yours as is your wont and reply. My replies are never nasty, but only abrupt and direct as yours are sometimes not. Reference is made to your comment @ 129 in the post "Oh Stop it Bill".
Holbach @145,
your assumption that an agnostic necessarily embraces a modicum of religious uncertainty is completely unwarranted.
As I have already told you, I am not uncertain about any of the world's religions as I believe the world would be a better place without any of them, and will always put myself on the side of those who wish to accelerate their decline and ridcule them.
My uncertainty is related to whether there is an inherent meaning in the universe (either intrinsic or from God). Unlike you, I am not certain that there is not such meaning, I believe that it is possible that there is but that even if there is one, we will most probably never find it. Also, I believe like you that the pursuit of such meaning may be a futile gesture, but unlike you, that the pursuit itself may have meaning.
I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, am an atheist, and I doubt the horror stories of Global Warming! - wildcardjack
Your denialism - deliberate ignorance and perverse rejection of the consensus among relevant scientific experts - is just as stupid as the creobot's rejection of evolution, and even more dangerous. What makes you think a BS in Mechanical Engineering makes you a competent climate scientist?
as he [Obama] recommends a police state beyond your wildest dreams. Radwaste
Idiot.
I think right now I'm with the late Michael Crichton who thinks that global warming is surely real but not a crisis. - Pikeman Urge
I think right now you're a halfwit. What the hell did Michael Crichton know about climate science?
Emmet I'm posting that on my blog.
negentropyeater @ 146
Good reply, and I accept your remarks on the world being better off without religion and your wish to hasten its decline.
But when you mention that the pursuit itself may have meaning, then you are getting into a realm that metaphysics deals with, and I have never given that idea much credence. A pursuit is made to determine if what we are looking for is there or not there. There may be a meaning to undertake the pursuit, but if what we are seeking does not exist,then the meaning behind the pursuit is meaningless, and therefore not worth pursuing. Pardon the rhyming sense to this, but as an atheist I do not pursue something that does not exist, and I mean this in not adding the qualifier "to me", as this will imply a personal opinion. I can say with certainity that there never was a god and let it end there without further need for explanation. I can accept your stance as an agnostic, but it is also incumbent upon you prove that this stance has any chance of proving what cannot be proven with certainity. Just describing this situation can get lost in a jumble of confusing jargon.
Thus spoke negentropyeater:
What does that mean?
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I just can't extract the tiniest semantic tid-bit from it. What is "inherent meaning"? There can't just be "meaning", it has to be meaning of something, so meaning of what? And in what sense can this meaning of something (whatever it is) it be "in the universe"?
Emmet: What non-literal Christianity asks you to believe is that Yahweh sat on his hands and did fuck all for ~13.3 billion years, piddling about on the margins of physics to ensure the development of a bald ape with a big brain on an insignificant rock, orbiting a piddly star in an unremarkable galaxy...
Not necessarily. There may be many other inhabited worlds in our galaxy, to the inhabitants of which God has revealed Himself in other ways. We simply don't know.
...then 197,000 years later suddenly revealed himself to a small group of semi-literate desert goatherds in an obscure part of the Middle East, behaved like a complete prick for about a thousand years, then decided that he would incarnate himself as one of the bald apes and have himself tortured and nailed to a tree in order to appease himself for his own displeasure at the, entirely fictitious, landmark event of two particular apes using their genitals for their entirely natural evolved purpose.
Not quite. Like I said, I don't think it's a case of "appeas[ing] himself for his own displeasure". I think it might be more logically consistent to view the supernatural in bipolar, rather than unipolar, terms; there is both good and evil in the universe, represented by our conceptions of "God" and "Satan", and they interact according to certain rules of fairness. Those rules demand that a price be exacted for sin, and Jesus paid that price.
Nor was original sin remotely related to how Adam and Eve purportedly "used their genitals"; indeed, as I understand it, sex was intended to be a perfectly normal and shame-free part of life, prior to the Fall. Rather, the sin was in disobedience to God in taking the apple. Furthermore, I think anyone rational would have to acknowledge that the Adam and Eve story is not literally true. There was not, therefore, one "original sin" or a literal "fall from grace"; rather, the story is an allegory representing humanity's general failure to live up to God's moral expectations.
You believe this shit? It's beneath ridiculous, a transparently preposterous concoction of primitive codswallop that any person claiming to be rational should be ashamed to believe.
You're entitled to your opinion. And I can see that, when phrased in an unfamiliar way, Christian doctrine would appear to be absurd... but truth is, at times, stranger than fiction.
Thus spake Rev. BigDumbChimp:
I'm honoured: be my guest.
I don't believe in the duality, Walton. I'm a discordian. So you're not merely a deist, but a proto-Zoroastrian. How nice.
Negentropyeater- i doubt that intrinsic meaning really exists. Because a we all know even the same sentence can be interpreted many different ways by many different people. I think meaning is identified by the one who seeks such a thing.
"Good point, but my reservation about "intellectual prostitution" would be that it suggests that someone else is satisfied by the activity, which is hardly the case. No, I think theology is definitely a circle-jerk. The clever bit is convincing the rubes that it's worth paying to watch, like some tawdry peep-show of simulated thinking."- Emmet
George Carlin is with us yet!
but truth is, at times, stranger than fiction.
Funny coincidences, you mean? Like how Mithras was born of a virgin and attended at birth by three shepherds? Or how the sacred rites of the pagan mystery religions included baptism by water and a sacramental meal, often of bread and wine "in rememberance" of a sacrificed and resurrected hero? Yeah, strange.
And the universe might be a giant hot-fudge sundae in which God has revealed his penisy self in the form of fudgy fucking semen disguised as dark matter. We simply don't know.
Have you read the piece by Allen Wood? Do you have a fucking response? (Please don't feel obligated - I'm sure you must be exhausted and your hands calloused from the hard labor required to put yourself through Oxford.)
Of course, I'm at the forefront of the pro-"obligated" movement. Fuck that pissy little "obliged." I will not be.
Thus spake Walton:
You're kidding, right? You claim to be a Christian: the "special place" of man is fundamental to the Desert Dogmas. What you've just suggested is that Yahweh is some kind of interstellar slut god, spreading his love to all manner little green men. Why not chimpanzees on Earth? Or dolphins? Did he have another "only begotten son" with a blowhole, who died painfully in a tuna net to redeem the dolphins? I doubt even the Archbishop of Canterbury, woolly-minded old fool that he is, would countenance such a thing.This is what happens when you abandon the requirement for evidence and open your mind so much that your brains fall out -- you open the door to, and start believing, utter crap.
If Christianity doesn't tell you that Yahweh isn't an interstellar slut, it can't possibly tell you that he isn't a leprechaun or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just what the fuck is this thing you call "Christianity"?
What do you mean "you don't think"? It's a central tenet of Christianity, for fuck's sake! God is all powerful and defines what sin is. He's the book-keeper of sin. He could have just said, "Y'know what, I'm going to forgive all those humans and let them join the LGMs from Alpha Centauri up here in Heaven", but he didn't. He sent his son to be beaten bloody and nailed to a stick. It's perverse. It's bronze-age. It's ridiculous.You can't possibly believe this and maintain the tiniest particle of sense unless Jesus is some kind of non-literal allegory too! If you don't believe in one God and that Jesus was his son, who actually existed and was nailed up by the Romans to appease his monstrous father, and instead believe there's "good and evil and balance in the Universe", you might as well be a pagan because you are a pagan. All Christianity is to you then is a collection of ancient brutal fairy-tales written to promote certain moral values in Roman Palestine, which is exactly what a bloody atheist believes.
Logically consistent? You presuppose that "the supernatural" exists and is a meaningful concept. It isn't. There's no evidence for it. Anybody can invent any being they want and ascribe to it any property they want. Ascribing properties like "unipolar" or "bipolar" to something that you can't even show exists? That's not "logically consistent", it is patently illogical to the point of laughable absurdity, about as meaningful as saying that a cross between a rabbit and a tomato sounds like a chainsaw. Pure fantasy.
Some things, when phrased in ordinary language, sound stupid. That's because they are stupid and the only way of making them sound other than stupid is by tarting them up with a lot of flowery, but vacuous, verbiage known as bullshit.And that's what it is. Bullshit. Top to bottom.
I've been trying to channel him ;o)
SC: Have you read the piece by Allen Wood? Do you have a fucking response?
Yes, I did read it, and as I understand it, his main points are as follows:
(1) "Evidentialism" refers to the view that there is a moral duty to proportion one's beliefs to the available evidence, and that, by implication, it is immoral to hold beliefs that are empirically unsupportable.
(2) He acknowledges that one can argue that beliefs are not subject to morality, because our beliefs are not generally voluntary; we do not, for instance, "choose" to believe that koalas are marsupials or that George Bush is President of the United States. However, in contested areas, he points out that there are two ways in which beliefs have been regarded as subject to morality:
(a) "Content" obligations to believe - where it is claimed that one "ought" to believe or not believe certain things simply on the grounds of what is believed or not believed. e.g. "[Some] find it blamable to believe that some races are naturally superior to others or blamable not to believe that the Holocaust occurred."
(b) "Procedural" obligations to believe - where it is claimed that a particular belief is blameworthy because of something about the way in which it is formed and maintained. Some, for instance, would assert that we ought to believe what we are told by religious authorities; others would assert that it is wrong to hold beliefs on any basis except one's own thinking and experience; and others think we ought to believe only that for which we have good evidence.
(3) "Procedural" obligations to believe, unlike "content" obligations, are not dependent on a particular belief being voluntary. Rather, they depend on the voluntariness of the thought process by which we arrive at our beliefs.
(4) Wood rejects, on moral grounds, the idea that there are any "content" obligations to believe; rather, he contends that all obligations to believe ought to be "procedural" ones. Thus he believes that if it is wrong to deny the Holocaust, this is not because the content of this belief is inherently wrong, but because we have a duty to believe what is supported by the evidence, and the evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming.
(5) Having concluded that all obligations to believe are "procedural" ones, he states his own proposed procedural norm as follows: Apportion the strength of your belief to the evidence; believe only what is justified by the evidence, and believe it to the full extent, but only to the extent, that it is justified by the evidence
(6) He explains that, in this context, the term "justified" does not refer to moral justification (since that would render the definition circular) but to epistemic justification; it "is to be understood against a background of a set of epistemic standards telling us, relative to a given context, what a certain set of considerations, regarded as rational arguments or evidence, justify a person in that context in believing". He construes the term "evidence" broadly, referring not just to empirical evidence but also to a priori arguments; and he leaves open the question of what our epistemic standards should be, saying that "that is for epistemologists to decide".
(6) He therefore rejects the arguments of, inter alia, Pascal, who contended that even where a belief is not epistemically justified, one can be morally justified in holding it.
(7) He rejects the common argument that religion is somehow "exempt", as a category, from the evidentialist principle, merely because no religious belief can ever be sufficiently justified beyond doubt by the available evidence; he, correctly, views this argument as circular. He further points out that, in places (such as 1 Kings 18, where Elijah's sacrifice was miraculously accepted where those of the Baal worshippers were rejected), Scripture itself relies on evidential epistemology to demonstrate the superiority of Yahweh over other gods.
(8) He also rejects, as immoral, the argument that while religious and other beliefs may not be evidentially supported, it is still acceptable to believe them because such belief may enhance people's quality of life. He points out that this argument is essentially paternalistic; " To lie paternalistically to people may sometimes help them (for instance, to overcome a life-threatening illness), but like most forms of paternalism, it shows a lack of respect for the person, and seems justifiable only temporarily, under very special conditions."
(will continue in a second post, to avoid making this one too long)
Citation, please.
Continued from #162 above:
(9) He now justifies why he believes in the evidentialist principle. He does this on two grounds:
(a) "Self-regarding grounds": he argues that each human being has an innate dignity, which we violate by simply deferring to authority and knowingly disregarding a lack of evidence in favour of blind belief. He argues that "self-respect imposes on us the duty to direct our lives in accordance with our rational capacities. When it comes to belief, our chief capacity is the ability to weigh the evidence and apportion our belief to it. Letting wishes or social conformity or self-deceptive aspirations to self-approval interfere with the exercise of this capacity is an abdication of our responsibility to govern our own lives through our own reason, and displays a lack of the respect we owe ourselves as autonomous beings with human dignity."
(b) "Other-regarding grounds" - since our beliefs affect the way we live our lives, and that, in turn, affects the lives of others, we have a duty not to hold beliefs which are unsupported by the evidence where such beliefs, if wrong, could harm others. He cites the example of the ship-owner who doesn't bother to ensure that his ship is seaworthy because he "has faith" that it will be seaworthy; clearly, if the ship sinks, he has done the drowned passengers a serious wrong.
--
That was an interesting article, and I hope I've understood it correctly. I don't have a response to it now, since, having read and processed it, I need some time to mull over its contents. But I hope I have satisfied SC and others that I am willing to engage with scholarly discourse on these issues; it's certainly more productive to do so than to go round in endless circles of the same discussion, as we so often end up doing.
SC at #163:
In the evidentialist principle, I therefore understand the term 'evidence' in a very broad way, encompassing not only empirical information but also a priori arguments and anything else that can authenticate itself as a genuine epistemic ground for assent, acceptance or belief. [My emphasis.] Clifford probably intended 'evidence' too narrowly (having inmind only empirical evidence, and a certain then fashionable interpretation of 'the scientific method'), but there is no reason that an evidentialist has to follow him in this. To broaden the notion of evidence, however, by no means trivializes the evidentialist principle.
***
Well, your mechanical summary, which I've skimmed, was semi-adequate (his organized writing made that easy), but it appears you've missed the gist, as it were. What is his central argument, in your own words? With whom is he contending, and how does he answer their challenges? How does what he's saying relate to religious belief, and to yours in particular? Do you think differently after reading it, and if not why not?
Of course you do. And if you're true to form you'll never refer to it again, but will continue to spout the same unsubstantiated religious and political rhetoric as though you never read it. It's your MO.
No, in fact you haven't. When did you engage with his argument about religious beliefs? What you said is that you "don't have a response to it now." Fuck that. Respond to it now, or shut the fuck up about your beliefs.
SC, I had to read and process the article before being able to make any sort of response to it. Surely you appreciate that it would be irresponsible of me to skim over it, and then make up some off-the-cuff response which was only vaguely related to its contents?
But since you insist, here's my take on it.
If I were to accept his conclusions, then I would be forced to concede that my own position was a fundamentally immoral one. I accept that, if one bases one's epistemology on the available empirical evidence and logical inference from such evidence, there is no epistemic justification for believing in the Judeo-Christian God. Wall would contend that, since there is no epistemic justification for such a belief, there is also no moral justification for it, and I am therefore acting immorally in holding that belief. Thus, to phrase it in terms of a step-by-step argument:
(1) (premise) A belief in the Judeo-Christian God is not sufficiently backed by empirical evidence to be epistemically justified.
(2) (premise) A belief which is not epistemically justified cannot be morally justified.
(3) (conclusion) Therefore, a belief in the Judeo-Christian God cannot be morally justified.
Premise (2) is, of course, the part of this which is open to attack. Wall justifies the evidentialist principle on two grounds; "self-regarding" and "others-regarding". The first ground is that, by not using our own faculties of reasoning and instead blindly following authority as an intellectual security blanket, we abandon our own inherent dignity as human beings. The second ground is that, since our beliefs affect the way we conduct ourselves, and the way we conduct ourselves affects others, it is irresponsible to choose to believe something which is not epistemically supported; he illustrates this, for instance, with the example of the shipowner which I cited above.
The first of these grounds is easily open to criticism, because Wall offers no justification for this idea of "inherent human dignity". Where does such "inherent dignity" come from? He says:
When it comes to belief, our chief capacity is the ability to weigh the evidence and apportion our belief to it. Letting wishes or social conformity or self-deceptive aspirations to self-approval interfere with the exercise of this capacity is an abdication of our responsibility to govern our own lives through our own reason, and displays a lack of the respect we owe ourselves as autonomous beings with human dignity.
But from where are these notions derived? What basis is there for suggesting that we have a "responsibility to govern our own lives through our own reason", or that we owe ourselves any particular "respect"? Paradoxically, I would suggest that these notions cannot be supported without reference to some sort of divine will or ultimate creative intelligence. If there is no purpose or order to the universe, then ipso facto there is no purpose or order to our lives, and therefore no inherent "responsibility" imposed on us other than that which we assign to ourselves - and therefore there is no reason why we should not, if we as individuals so choose, conform to the prevailing belief system and abdicate intellectual honesty.
Wall's second ground has much more force. And this is a compelling argument against following any belief system which has the potential to adversely affect the lives of others; it is, indeed, irresponsible to make a decision based on "faith" rather than evidence, where the outcome of such decision may place others in jeopardy. But my particular belief system, as I have explained many times, is characterised by a belief in Christ's fundamental moral teaching: "love your neighbour as yourself". This is a precept by which I would choose to live, by reason of its innate social value, even if I were an atheist. Therefore, the outcome of my decision (whether or not to believe in God) makes no difference to my conduct, and therefore makes no difference to the physical outcome as it affects other people. Thus, I have committed no breach of my responsibility towards others.
Wood, Walton. His name is Allen Wood. Now I will finish reading your screed.
Sorry. A small error. It's been a long day.
SC, lay off Walton. He's had a long, hard day toiling in the sophistry mines and now he deserves some rest 'n' mulling-it-over time without the additional stress engendered by your repeated use of the F-profanity.
If there is no purpose or order to the universe, then ipso facto there is no purpose or order to our lives - Walton
False. Assume there is no purpose or order in the universe. How does this stop people striving for success, for knowledge, to create beauty, to help those they love, or wider objects or causes that concern them?
Sigh. I see this is going to take some time.
SC, what's the problem now? I responded to your request as best I could. If it's not good enough, then I'm sorry. I make no pretensions to intellectual brilliance. But I did my best, and I don't enjoy being insulted for my pains.
Walton,
It was an honest expression of frustration. You provided a mechanical summary of the piece, and then when asked to engage with it you selected a couple of portions of a couple of sections without addressing or putting those in the context of the entirety. I found your last response incredibly evasive. There was much wrong with your comments, and it will take some time to explain that.
Walton @ 153
How insanely ludicrous your even mentioning that your imaginary god has revealed itself in other galaxies. Think about that stupid and incredible statement. Would not the information of this god reach us through divine speed, irrespective of possibly entirely different physical and chemical makeup? You cannot resolve the existence of your god in our galaxy, yet you bring into the equation the impossibility of this same imaginary god existing in a galaxy millions of light-years away! The chance of ever visiting that distant galaxy are zero, as is ever finding your god anywhere in the universe. Your statements at times just staggers credulity, but this latest just proves how embedded insane religion affects your ability to reason on any level. You project your irrationality beyond our galaxy in the guise that your god is everywhere. Never mind polluting other galaxies with your insane nonsense and try to keep your unbalanced mind here on earth and which in you will be buried and forgotten. If we did have visitors from another galaxy and we mention if this god is there, and they say that we don't what the hell you are talking about, your crap will be confined just to earth and your isane belief will be rendered garbage. Can you fathom the enormity of this revelation from a civilization in another galaxy and what it does to your insane beliefs? Another galaxy! Get down to earth and get rational.
I'm with negentropyeater here; a mistaken search* may yield unexpected results or insights (e.g. Columbus' search for a sea passage to the East discovered a new landmass; alchemists' search for the Philosopher's Stone or the Elixir of Life led to chemistry) and opens the door to serendipity and new insights.
* Assuming a genuine seeking.
John Morales @ 176
Whether the search is mistaken for another, SOMETHING WAS FOUND. If Columbus had not found what he intended or not, just by sailing anywhere on the globe he would eventually find a landmass. Whether it was intentioned or not IT WAS THERE. So the pursuit was not futile. To apply the same principle in the search for a god will be fruitless as there is no god and none will be found. Your analogy to the philosopher's stone and the elixir of life is irrelevant and not analogous to the to this degree of purpose. You are mixing material pursuits with unknown and non-existent things, and they just do not mesh in this comparison.
Holbach,
I didn't say a deity would be found, I said it opened the door to serendipity.
How so? They sought magical effects and ended up discovering chemistry.
What they sought did not exist, but the pursuit thereof was worthwhile.
More directly, do you contend that the pursuit of theology has made no contribution at all to logic or to philosophy?
John Morales @ 178
Yes, I have serendipity in various life experiences, but never in a religious meaning as you are so hard in trying to imply. Your serendipitous experiences may have a religious bent to them, but don't even try to conclude that mine are in the same vein. You have a religious streak in your demeanor and is borne out in several of your posts. Don't try to paint me with that same brush as tou will be wasting your time as in your search for something that does not exist.
This, I hope will shock you, but I have never regarded or accepted religion (theology as you facetiously and delicately put it) as contributing a smidgen to logic or philosophy. You impugn the very word logic when you associate it with religion, the most deleterious foe of logic and reason. Philosophy has existed without religion, as evinced by my very namesake, Holbach, and countless others. Religion is a handicap and useless baggage to philosophy, and only persisted because some philosophers were also religious and denigrated true philosophy which should be free of irrational tenets. No, science, in all it's disciplines and endeavors has achieved more than religion has ever laid claim to. We can and do live without religion, but science is the epitomy of all that we are and have elevated to a degree that renders religion completely irrational and useless.
Perhaps you doubt my ardent atheism and are trying to look for a loophole in my fabric. You will fail, just as you will fail in ever finding a non-existent god.
Holbach,
Wow, talk about false positives!
I'm entirely anti-religious, but also try to be intellectually honest and include all evidence I know of in my reasoning.
Sure, won't argue that firs sentence, though I suspect the reason for its persistence is other than what you claim. For one thing, it's a tool for social control.
Not really, I have more than an inkling of your dogmatism. And theology and religion are separate concepts: (from Wikipedia)
· A religion is a set of conducts resulted from tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power.
· Theology is the study of a god or the gods from a religious perspective
Note that contributions can be other than direct or proximate: "The earliest universities in Western Europe were developed under the aegis of the Catholic Church, usually as cathedral schools or by papal bull as Studia Generali [...] Many historians state that universities and cathedral schools were a continuation of the interest in learning promoted by monasteries."
"Medieval philosophy is characteristically theological: with the possible exceptions of Avicenna and Averroes, medieval thinkers did not consider themselves philosophers at all. [...] Two Roman philosophers had a great influence on the development of medieval philosophy: Augustine and Boethius. Augustine is regarded as the greatest of the Church Fathers. He is primarily a theologian and a devotional writer, but much of his writing is philosophical. His themes are truth, God, the human soul, the meaning of history, the state, sin and salvation. For over a thousand years there was hardly a Latin work of theology or philosophy that did not quote his writing, or invoke his authority. Some of his writing had an influence on the development of early modern philosophy, such as that of Descartes."
"Perhaps you doubt my ardent atheism and are trying to look for a loophole in my fabric. You will fail, just as you will fail in ever finding a non-existent god."- Holdback
Yeah, 'cus if you had a small place in your haert for companionship with the lowly primates, we would burn you for harboring heretics *roll*
John Morales @ 180
No matter how you separate the meanings, theology and religion are one and the same nonsense. The study of gods? The study of something that does not exist? Religion? How can that be separated from theology? A pig in satin is still a pig.
You explain Augustine to me as the greatest of the church fathers, a name which I loathe with Aquinas, as persons I am not familiar with? The whole paragraph beginning with Medieval Philosophers is nothing but a religious treatsie to which I am loathe even to comment on, and again serves as an indication that religion is never far removed from your life. I never quote religion as you do, but only denigrate it with ridicule and contempt. This is not to say that I am ignorant of it's tenets and history, but would not waste my time and brain cells bothering to even consider it.
RickrOll @ 181
You sure are sharp enough to characterize me from a few posts. I'm willing to bet I would dislike you more than you dislike me, and that from just one post. Simple isn't it, to spot a wacko from two lines of drivel.
I think it might be more logically consistent to view the supernatural in bipolar, rather than unipolar, terms
God Diagnosed With Bipolar Disorder
it's not about like or dislike Holback- don't make it even easier to make parallels with creationists here. And it's been more than "a few." Again, why don't you have a book burning- or more appropriate, a Bible burning then? #183 is a perfect example of your callous and stupid habit of making a double-standard of behavior and intelligence for those you disagree with.
Holbach, let's go back to the original point of dispute: N suggested there could be merit in a search for meaning (whatever that may mean ;), you said nah, searching for the nonexistent is pointless.
I'm saying that is not so, even if any knowledge gained is only an incidental byproduct, and pointing out historical parallels to support that claim.
Two final examples, then, from physics: the search for phlogiston, and the search for the luminiferous aether.
Windy @ 184: Douglass Adams is smirking in his grave.
God is Bipolar, thanks to the Redactor of the Bible between the J and P texts. David posted this fascinating essay a long time ago, and i can't help but bring it up when the occasion merits it: http://www.georgeleonard.com/yahweh.html
Holbach,
1. I've noticed. To quote something on any given subject is not to have belief on that subject - consider me quoting the Bible to the religious analogous to me quoting Star Trek canon to a Trekkie. You do know you can both quote and ridicule, and that the former does not detract from the latter, right?
2. OK.
3. Um, you've just contradicted [2].
You can't both know something and simultaneously not even consider it.
Relax.
Actually I don't think Bush's responses were that bad here. If a christian believes that the theory of evolution best explains the diversity of life and it should be taught in schools but personally thinks God is involved somehow, that's enough for me. That's not the fundamentalist view, that's how most of humanity sees it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still very keen to see the back of that man.